The people doing "punches" as part of cardio-kickboxing classes aren't even attempting to punch effectively. Cardio-kickboxing is utterly irrelevant to this topic.

The relevant comparison is between boxers, wrestlers, judoka and others who apply techniques against actively resisting opponents under realistic conditions, and those who simply do them in the air in front off mirrors, in kata, and so on. The former KNOW which techniques are effective because they test them out on a regular basis. The latter can only HOPE they will be able to apply techniques effectively should the need arise.

There is something fundamentally off in your claim, that the people practicing this kind of punching in front of a mirror only 'hit air'. There are a ton of Karate schools that do hard sparring and contact, hit bags, hit pads, etc. that do this exact drill, so you are i'm not sure where you get the idea that anyone who does it is just hitting air exclusively.

What's really up for debate is whether or not the principles in this kind of drill are being used in the sparring or what have you,you are trying to make it sound like there are only two camps, one which does nothing but resistant training, and the other which does nothing but hit air, and that the air hitters are the only ones practicing punching drills like this. That is incorrect in the extreme, seeing as this stuff is done by Kyokushin, and i'm guessing other Japanese knockdown schools as well, in addition to the 'air hitters'.

The boxing trainers that I've run across in my training encourage us to do rounds of "shadowboxing" in front of a mirror to practice the proper punching form for the 4 main boxing punches. (Jab, cross, hook, uppercut), and combinations of those strikes which we use in boxing sparring.I've never used a reverse punch in karate sparring, or a palm strike, or any sort of chop. I would use them in a self defense situation, however.

The relevant comparison is between boxers, wrestlers, judoka and others who apply techniques against actively resisting opponents under realistic conditions, .

I believe you just listed off a bunch of sports.....where are the realistic conditions? Boxers wrap their hands to prevent breaking them and then put them in a glove...realistic? Tyson broke his hand in a real fight against another boxer outside the ring=reality. A technique that requires artificial support to allow it's use isn't realistic. The karate "punch" wasn't the main hand technique until karate was introduced into the school system. The punch was added to make it safer for the kids-so they wouldn't injure each other. If you truly want to hit either use an open hand or as one Okinawan karate master said, "Punch the makiwara 100 times with each hand each day for one year to develop a proper punch." If you are going to use sport results to determine what is best in combat you are back to apples and oranges. It makes a good fruit salad. As a martial artist going on over 35 years and police trainer, and having trained on the makiwara I still don't punch people in the head-it's open hand time. But what would I know about a real fight...I don't compete in sports.

Full contact sports like boxing and MMA offer training that is as realistic as possible within the limits of safety and sanity. No, a boxing match or MMA match is not a "real" fight. But such training is infinitely more realistic than anything offered in 99.9% of TMA schools. Please, let's stop refusing to see the obvious!

The people doing "punches" as part of cardio-kickboxing classes aren't even attempting to punch effectively. Cardio-kickboxing is utterly irrelevant to this topic.

I agree with you that cardio-kickboxing isn't really fair to compare to. We should however take into consideration the people that practice types of cardio-workouts, that have the false sense of confidence that they are able to defend theirselfs in fight with their 'cardio-techniques'.

Originally Posted By: fileboy2002

The relevant comparison is between boxers, wrestlers, judoka and others who apply techniques against actively resisting opponents under realistic conditions, and those who simply do them in the air in front off mirrors, in kata, and so on.

That doesn't really relate to the original question. Boxers are know to practice the same kind of 'kara-waza'* like karateka, only limited to striking, where karateka do this to most offensive and defensive techniques. (*Techniques in the air.)

Originally Posted By: fileboy2002

The former KNOW which techniques are effective because they test them out on a regular basis. The latter can only HOPE they will be able to apply techniques effectively should the need arise.

I don't see how they test them out on a regular basis in a realistic setting. We use throws and sweeps in our karate school, we test them on the hard gymfloor, which I find slightly more realistic then on Judo's tatami. I tell you, it shock's you up good and it can hurt like hell.We punch bar-knuckle on a hard-surfaced bogu (the koshiki karate/ daido juku stuff). I find that also slightly more realistic than the well wrapped and gloved boxing fists (and sometimes headguard).

Let's discuss maai, the concept of fighting distance (I know I'm drifting from the original topic). Do you consider the boxing, wrestling, judo distance realistic for a streetfight to the death? I'm sure I would try to stick to our rather long maai. Especially since I cannot clearly distinguish a conceiled knife. (I know this is actually quite realistic in certain neighborhood in the UK.) Do those named martial sports consider headbutting.

Back to the original question: why do we train the kihon karate version of punching? Because of the purpose of developing which is discussed already. To create technique; the most ideal version of the punch. Which has in that stage (kihon: developement of technique) not yet to do with application.

But yes, you are right to say that a great deal of today's so called TMA doesn't have a clue about that. Maybe because they have that false idea that competition is realistic. (But it's actually only a small part of training.) Many of today's so called TMA could be considered SMA, XMA or CMA (S: sports, X: extreme or C: cardio) I prefer to train with budo in mind, or at least try to acomplish that, which is hard every now and then.

EDIT:

Originally Posted By: fileboy2002

Full contact sports like boxing and MMA offer training that is as realistic as possible within the limits of safety and sanity. No, a boxing match or MMA match is not a "real" fight. But such training is infinitely more realistic than anything offered in 99.9% of TMA schools. Please, let's stop refusing to see the obvious!

I disagree with this first statement. Have a look at Kudo for example, adn yes it has a competition format. Boxing totally neglects the legs, which are very powerfull weapons. I can use my feet in a way that makes you think again about continuing a fight. Or I could choose to walk away after that.Boxing and MMA aren't real fights, I agree. So are Kyokushin matches no real fights. They are all limited.I also agree that many TMA don't train in way that comes close to realism.

But in the end, that hasn't much value to the original question. (Although it realates.)

We are not writing novels here--so "clunky" prose is hardly a problem. And in context with the post you CHOSE to use provocative terms/framing--so the qualifier would have been warrented to avoid this exact conversation.

As to your example:

"we don't need to speculate about weither or not uppercuts and right crosses are effective--we KNOW they are."

Maybe, maybe not---I would guess that any number of people have TRIED to throw a good right cross or uppercut and FAILED miserably--I have done so myself and been on the receiving end of some pretty sucky attempts at strikes.

So the question becomes:

--Was it the fault of TECHNIQUE--as in something was deeply, fundamentally, wrong with their version of an uppercut or right cross?

--Was it the fault of how it was TAUGHT?

--Or did they (and I) simply APPLY it poorly?

You see the difference here right?

As the saying goes "Its a poor workmen who blames his tools."

"realistic conditions"

I may or may not agree with you here. Depends on how you define "realistic conditions."

Other than LEO's and Military folks how many people are really going to be getting into life or death combat on a regular basis? And how many people training actually know what such a fight is going to be like?

"Realistic" attacks often involve firearms--do you spend a couple of hours a day shooting at the range and do you have permit to carry concealed?I've got a buddy that would argue that if you DON'T your not training "for real."Sometime knives or other weapons are involved---are you training to use knives and clubs or to fight against them? And if so how do you test that your doing it in a "realistic" fashion?

In term of stright H-T-H, many of my MMA/boxing buddies train to fight in a specific weight class. How "realistic" is it to assume your opponent is going to be EXATLY a guy your height, weight etc?Most of the "realistic" fights I have seen have been big, muscular, mean dudes attacking much smaller, weaker, people.So how often do you train/fight waaay outside your weight class? And how "realistic" is your training if you don't?

My boxing buddies train under the assumption that they won't be tackled or kicked in the knee, groin etc---they train HARD btw, but they are training to fight other boxers in non-professional bouts. You could argue that PARTS of their training are very "realistic" but parts are not. THEY would argue that there is a DIFFERENCE between what they would do in the ring and what they would do "for real."

"You fight like you train" is more often than not accurate--but I'm pretty sure my boxing buddies would be able to do some serious damage despite the "limits" of their training.

Also the really serious altercations I have seen were blindside,"sneak" attacks--with a weapon or by multiple people suddenly rushing somebodyDo you train vs those kinds of situations? If not, then how "realistic" is your training?

Like I said before, watching the Ultimate Fighter I watched people use techniques that I would consider really stupid--such a jump spinning backfist against a highly trained, skilled, and tough fighter--thing is sometimes it WORKEDand KO'ed/TKO'ed somebody.Pretty silly, "unrealistic" technique when you think about it--but in the right hands, in the right situation it worked pretty well. My guess is that most of what you think of as "unrealistic" might just fall in the same catagory.

Edited by cxt (12/15/1112:30 PM)

_________________________
I did battle with ignorance today.......and ignorance won.
Huey.

I haven't had access to a computer for a while, this has become an awesome Thread, with some excellent arguements giving the ethos behind the Punching methods used.

The main point of the "Karate Punch" IS the use of "Hikite" which is totally how I see it but more on Stand-up Grappling than actual striking! I suppose its the same as application to the kata, everyone has a different concept as to what each technique is used for. Its not wrong its just a different way of fighting.

I must say That All techniques come from the floor not just the hip, no matter what the position of the strike.

Just as a "Matter of Fact" (Laboratory Conditions) Its was proven that the "Boxing Punch" was the hardest of them all

This is from the Show "Fight Science", I am sure you all remember it. I don't have the exact sequence of everyone from the various Martial Arts Styles punching, but the Boxer WAS much higher than the next closest!

_________________________
A man is but the product of his thoughts what he thinks, he becomes.

Not exactly a reliable across the board test lol, not sure I consider a silly show like that definitive 'proof' of something. Man I hate MA TV shows. How did they select who should even be on the show?

Anyway there are things other than power generation involved in karate punching, such as ease of disengaging, and maintaining upright posture at all times when striking so your posture is harder to break for knees, throws, etc. All that stuff is part of 'basic' Karate punching, IMO.

I disagree. Hikite has several purposes, one of them being grappling, one being recieving, etc.The one used in kihon is: being the ideal starting position for the following strike in that particular excersise. (Usually kara-zuki, but also frequently used with makiwara-zuki or shiwari-zuki.)In kumite hikite is hardly used, because you have to cover your weak spots.The hikite used in a grappling-situation isn't always returning to the side of the body. That is just as dependant on the situation as the start of your punch is.

Originally Posted By: Dobbersky

[...] which is totally how I see it but more on Stand-up Grappling than actual striking!

That is in my opinion a too narrow understanding of both karate punching and hikite.

Karate has many types of punching, more than western-boxing has.Here is just a short list of the types that come to mind:Jun-zuki, gyaku-zuki, oi-zuki, choku-zuki, ura-zuki, tate-ken-zuki, kara-zuki, kizami-zuki, mawashi-zuki, etc.The last two (kizami-zuki and mawashi-zuki) are (judging by my limited boxing experience) most similar to the jab and cross/hook.

These punches can all start from a hikite-position, but in application it will be rather stupid to do since you create 'suki' (opening in kamae) right before you initiate your seme. (Here is that gap between kihon and kumite again.) During kumite you have your guard up. In kihon you usually don't.

The guard in karate is lower than a boxing guard which has a purpose. In boxing you are rulebound not to use any kicks or grabbing. In karate all is allowed (unless you compete or train with certain safety measures). This means the maai will be larger because the reach of you and your opponent is longer because of kicks. This also meens choku-zuki is more logical to apply than mawashi-zuki. Choku-zuki has a more efficient route towards the target and is less telegraphed. This lower guard used in karate enables for better protection of you weak spots. One being very nasty if not protected properly Because of longer maai routes choku/straight attacks will be focussed on.

Originally Posted By: Dobbersky

Just as a "Matter of Fact" (Laboratory Conditions) Its was proven that the "Boxing Punch" was the hardest of them all

I haven't seen the 'prove' or the experiment. But were these subjects (probees) of similar build? Did this boxing punch start from the boxing guard? How many subjects were tested? How many punches were tested? (Did thes subjects wore mitts?These are just some of the questions that rise when I hear of such an experiment.